« PreviousContinue »
lifieshall give you another Comforter, that he may
abide with shaf for ever, even the Spirit of truth.” v. 26. “the Com. rtuer, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send enceny name. XV. 26. “the Comforter, whom I will send engto you from the Father,.... which proceedeth from the peather, he shall testify of me. xvi. 7. “I will send him unto you."
v. 8. “when he is come, he will reprove the vorld."
v. 13. “he shall not speak of himself; but whatpever he shall hear, that shall he speak.” v. 14. “he shall lorify me, for he shall receive of mine.' v. 15. “all things hat the Father bath are mine; therefore said I that he shall ake of mine.” xx. 22. “when he had said this, he breathed ju them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." cts ii. 2—4. 33. “having received of the Father the promise f the Holy Ghost, he bath shed forth this—.” v. 32. “we * -e his witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy host whom God hath given to them that obey him.” Rom.
13. "now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace believing, that ye may abound in hope through the power the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. xii. 3. “no man can say that risus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Heb. ii. 4. "God
„30 bearing them witness both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according ito his own will.” Hence he is called the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of God, and even the Spirit of Christ. Matt. x. 20. " it is the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”. Rom. viii. 9. " but ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so pe that the Spirit of God dwell in you : now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” v. 15, 16. “ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that e are the sons of God.” 1 Cor. vi. 11. “by the Spirit of
God.” 2 Cor. i. 21, 22. “ he which stablisheth us with i in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also Aled us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." ul. iv. 6. “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into ur hearts
, crying, Abba, Father.” Eph. 1. 13, 14. “ that holy pirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance. > 30. "grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are aled.” ii
. 18. “through him we both have access by one pees. unto the Father.
1 Pet. i. 12. “the Holy Ghost
sent down from heaven.” From all which res uts the conse mand in Matt. xxviii. 19. “ baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” I John v. 7. “ there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one.” The latter passage has been considered in the preceding chapter ; but both will undergo a further examination in a subsequent part of the present.
If it be the divine will that a doctrine which is to be understood and believed as one of the primary articles of our faith, should be delivered without obscurity or confusion, and explained, as is fitting, in clear and precise terms,—if it be certain that particular care ought to be taken in every thing conected with religion, lest the objection urged by Christ against the Samaritans should be applicable to us--"ye worship ye know not what,” John iv. 22. - if our Lord's saying should be held sacred wherever points of faith are in question we know what we worship’-the particulars which have been stated seem to contain all that we are capable of knowing, or are required to know respecting the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as revelation has declared nothing else expressly on the subject. The nature of these particulars is such, that although the Holy Spirit be nowhere said to have taken upon himself any mediatorial functions, as is said of Christ, nor to be engaged by the obligations of a filial relation to pay obedience to the Father, yet he must evidently be considered as inferior to both Father and Son, inasmuch as he is represented and declared to be subservient and obedient in all things; to have been promised, and sent, and given; to speak nothing of himself; and even to have been given as an earnest. There is no room here for any sophistical distinction founded on a twofold næture; all these expressions refer to the Holy Spirit, who is maintained to be the supreme God; whence it follows, that wherever similar phrases are applied to the Son of God, in which he is distinctly declared to be inferior to the Father, they ought to be understood in reference to his divine as well to his human character. For what those, who believe in the Holy Spirit's co-equality with the Father, deem to be not unworthy of him, cannot be considered unworthy of the Son, however exalted may be the dignity of his Godhead. Wherefore it remains now to be seen on what grounds, and by
arguments, we are constrained to believe that the Holy Spirit is God, if Scripture nowhere expressly teach the doctrine of his divinity, not even in the passages where his office is explained at large, nor in those where the unity of God is explicitly asserted, as in John : * ?. 1 Cor. viii. 4, &c. nor where God is either described, or zueroduced as sitting upon his throne, -if, further, the Spirit be frequently named the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit of God, Eph. iv. 30. so that the Spirit of God being actually and numerically distinct from God himself, cannot possibly be essentially one God with him whose Spirit he is, (except on certain strange and absurd hypotheses, which have no foundation in Holy Scripture, but were devised by human ingenuity, for the sole purpose of supporting this particular doctrine)--if, wherever the Father and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together, the Father alone be called God, and the Father alone, omitting all notice of the Spirit, be acknowledged by Christ himself to be the one true God, as has been proved in the former chapter by abundant testimony ;-if he be God who “stablisheth us in Christ,” who “hath anointed us," who “hath sealed us,” and “given us the earnest of the Spirit,” 2 Cor. i. 22. if that God be one God, and that one God the Father ;-if, finally, “God hath 'sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba,
Father,” Gal. iv. 6. whence it follows that he who sent both the Spirit of his Son and the Son himself, he on whom we are taught to call
, and on whom the Spirit himself calls, is the one God and the only Father. It seems exceedingly unreasonable, not to say dangerous, that in a matter of so much difficulty, believers should be required to receive a doctrine, represented by its advocates as of primary importance and of undoubted certainty, on anything less than the clearest testiJocony of Scripture ; and that a point which is confessedly atrary to human reason, should nevertheless, be considered susceptible of proof from human reason only, or rather from jubtful and obscure disputations.
First, then, it is usual to defend the divinity of the Holy a ipirit on the ground, that the name of God seems to be attri**uted to the Spirit: Acts v. 3, 4. “why hath Satan filled thine eart to lie to Holy Ghost ? .... thou hast not lied unto jen, but unto God.” But if attention be paid to what has
stated before respecting the Holy Ghost on the authority
of the Son, this passage will appear too weak for the support of so great a doctrinal mystery. For since the Spirit is ex pressly said to be sent by the Father, and in the name of the Son, he who lies to the Spirit must lie to God, in the same sense as he who receives an apostle, receives God who sent him, Matt. x. 40. John xüï. 20.2 St. Paul himself removes all ground of controversy from this passage, and explains it most appositely by implication, 1 Thess. iv. 8. where his intention is evidently to express the same truth more at large : “he therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.” Besides, it may
be doubted whether the Holy Spirit in this passage does not sig. nify God the Father ;3 for Peter afterwards says, v. 9. "how is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord ?” that is, God the Father himself, and his divine intelligence, which no one can elude or deceive. And in v. 32. the Holy Spirit is not called God, but a witness of Christ with the apostles, “whom God hath given to them that obey him.” So also Acts ii. 38. “ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” the gift, that is, of God. But how can the gift of God be himself God, much more the supreme
God ? The second passage is Acts xxviii. 25. compared with Isai. vi. 8, 9. “I heard the voice of the Lord, saying- &c. .
2 Clarke, as might be expected, gives the same explanation of the passage (Scripture Doctrine, Part I. Sect. 2. No. 66.) also quoting 1 Thess. iv. 8. He supports his opinion on the authority of Athanasius. "Qote ο ψευσάμενος τώ αγίω πνεύματι, τω θεώ εψεύσατο, τη κατοικούντι έν ανθρώποις διά του πνεύματος αυτού όπου γάρ έστι το πνεύμα του θεού, εκεί έστιν ο θεός. εν τούτω γαρ, φησί, γινώσκομεν ότι ο θεός εν ημίν μένει, ότι εκ του πνεύματος αυτού δέδωκεν ημίν. De Incarnat. Verbi et contra Arianos. Lardner gives a different, but not less unsatisfactory explanation of the passage. He says that as the apostles were plainly under an extraordinary divine influence and direction, when Ananias and Sapphira attempted to impose upon them by a false account, they were justly said to lie to God himself, and not to man.—Letters on the Logos Works, II. 151.
3 There is an error in this passage in the manuscript, where it is written thus : • Quicquid incertum est annon hoc loco Spiritus Sanctus Deum Patrem significat : idem enim Petrus,' &c. Unless we suppose that some words have fallen out, the sentence may be corrected by a very slight alteration :-Quid, quod incertum est annon hoc loco Spiritus Sanctus Deum Patrem significet ? idem, &c. I have followed this conjecture in the translation, as it is a form of sentence very frequently used in other parts of the treatise.
well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet,” &r. See tä also Jer. xxxi. 31. compared with Heb. x. 15. But it has
been shewn above, that the names Lord and Jehovah are in throughout the Old Testament attributed to whatever angel God
may entrust with the execution of his commands ; and in the New Testament the Son himself openly testifies of the
Holy Spirit, John xvi. 13. that “he shall not speak of himEself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.” It
cannot therefore be inferred from this passage, any more than do from the preceding, that the Holy Ghost is God.
The third place is 1 Cor. iii. 16. compared with vi. 19. and 2 Cor. vi. 16. “the temple of God.... the temple of the Holy Ghost." But neither is it here said, nor does it in any way follow from hence, that the Holy Spirit is God; for it is not because the Spirit alone, but because the Father also and the Son make their abode with us, that we are called the temple of God. Therefore in 1 Cor. vi. 19, where we are called “the temple of the Holy Ghost,” St. Paul has added, “which ye have of God," as if with the purpose of guarding against any error which might arise respecting the Holy Spirit in consequence of his expression. How then can it be deduced from this passage, that he whom we have of God, is God himself ? In what sense we are called the temple of the Holy Ghost, the same apostle has explained more fully Eph. ii. 22. “in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
The next evidence which is produced for this purpose, is the ascription of the divine attributes to the Spirit.
And first, Omniscience; as if the Spirit were altogether of the same
essence with God. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. “the Spirit searcheth play all things, yea the deep things of God : for what man knoweth
the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” With regard to the tenth verse, I reply, that in the
1 opinion of divines, the question here is not respecting the divine omniscience, but only respecting those deep things "which God hath revealed unto us by his Spirit”—the words immediately preceding. Besides, the phrase all things must be restricted to mean whatever it is expedient for us to know: not to mention that it would be absurd to speak of God
4 So Beza and Grotius explain the passage.